REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday, June 22, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Donald Steele - Vice Chair, Presiding
Commission Members: Carl Volden, Clifton Chandler, Steve Kroes, Gary Maxwell, H.R. Brown
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Eric Richardson, Council Representative
Others: Michael Stuy, Eric Richardson, Charelle Bowman, John Woozley (7:23 p.m.), Mayor McGee (8:12 p.m.)
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
1. This meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by C. Steele.
Clifton Chandler was recognized as a voting member.
2. Swearing in of New Planning Commission Member (7:09 p.m.)
Kim Holindrake swore in H.R. Brown as a Planning Commission Member beginning as second alternate.
3. Approval of Minutes from the April 27, 2006, Regular Planning Commission Meeting (7:11 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Kroes - To approve the minutes from the April 27, 2006, Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye-C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Volden - To adjust the agenda to reflect the moving of Item #5 before Item #4. Seconded by C. Kroes.
Aye-C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
5. Review/Recommendation on Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 18, Fences (7:14 p.m.)
See handouts.
Staff Presentation:
Council Member Richardson stated that the Parks and Trails Committee asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the fencing ordinance, specifically along the parks and trail corridors. In April the Planning Commission made changes to allow for different colors, but didn’t extend its consideration to other materials. The City Council asked that the Planning Commission make a full consideration of colors and materials. The Council suggested that it might be appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider and discuss the needs of different parks and trails in the City. He said that safety, consistency, property values and personal choice are all important considerations for the City Council.
Michael Stuy said that the Parks and Trails Committee would like to see consistency. They also felt strongly against chain link fencing. He stated that he came from a city with no fence ordinance. A consistent fence ordinance can enhance property values.
Rodney Despain stated that most cities have not tried to mandate a style through their fencing ordinances. Most cities deal with the placement or height of fences and not the style or type. He asked the Planning Commission to consider a few questions: What is the purpose of a fence? Is the view of the resident paying for the fence or those that see it from the other side more important? The current ordinance takes the view that the most important consideration is what the fence looks like from the trail or park.
Committee Discussion:
• C. Steele stated that if the fencing is legislated so that it is consistent, the City might be required to pay for it. He also noted that if consistency is the goal, the more types of fencing that are approved, the more types you will see.
• C. Volden said he sees a conflict in multiple types of fencing because of lack of consistency. He said he hasn’t heard anything that has made him feel compelled to make a change to the current ordinance.
• C. Chandler said that one of the residents approached the City Council about a fencing issue. They obtained a fencing permit that did not specify color. The back of their property abuts the Juniper Heights park. They have installed gray vinyl along the sides, but the back is required to be white. They would like gray to match the rest of their fencing. They are waiting for a decision. C. Chandler also noted that there are several existing fences that have been installed along the trail in Canyon Heights that do not meet the current standards. He stated that he feels there are enough restrictions on residents. This is a private choice that they are paying for and it goes on their private property. They should be allowed to put up what they want. People using the trails and parks will not be overly concerned with what kind of fence lines the trails and parks.
• C. Kroes said that he thought the reason that the Commission came to the conclusion to add tan to the list of acceptable colors was because there is already inconsistency along the parks and trails. The revision gave people a little flexibility without leading to too much inconsistency. He felt people should have choices. Uniformity does not need to be forced. He favors open styles that meet some minimum standards. He suggested that the Planning Commission go out and look at the trails throughout the City before crafting a new ordinance.
• C. Maxwell suggested that it might be appropriate for neighborhoods to vote for their preferred fencing style. Kim Holindrake pointed out that a neighborhood vote can be problematic. She also stated that fencing has always been a City issue. Some residents feel they should be able to install the types of fences they want, and then the City can plant greenery to mask any inconsistency. C. Maxwell stated that he likes some consistency, but the consistency doesn’t have to be citywide, or even neighborhood-wide. A group of consecutive neighbors could come to the City and ask for a change. Safety and security are his number one priority. Aesthetics is secondary. He feels the consistency of material provides enough consistency.
• H.R. Brown said that he dislikes the idea that the City can dictate the type of fencing allowed on private property. People need options, but the City can establish some parameters.
• Mayor McGee said he would like to encourage consistency.
• C. Steele said there are three issues: (1) Consistency - He feels it is impractical to be consistent Citywide. There can be consistency within a locality. (2) Color - The ordinance can include words that expand colors in natural hues. (3) Openness - 40% open might be impractical for small children and small animals. C. Steele also recommended that the City or developer install (or contribute financially to) the fence around the parks.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To change the fence ordinance in Section F Subheading #3, #4, and #5 to include white, tan or gray and to add a letter H, which would state that any new subdivisions would be reviewed, and required fencing would be addressed at the time of any new subdivision adjacent to parks and trails and will be brought before the Planning Commission. Seconded by C. Volden.
AMEND MOTION: C. Maxwell - To let staff determine where to put a section that states that any new subdivisions would be reviewed, and required fencing would be addressed by the Planning Commission at the time of any new subdivision adjacent to parks and trails. Accepted by C. Volden.
C. Steele suggested changing the language for acceptable colors to state “natural tones.”
AMEND MOTION: C. Maxwell - To include a provision in the fence ordinance to allow for existing homeowners to come in a group to request a variance for their neighborhood of a different type of fence material. No second. Amendment dies.
Aye-C. Volden
Nay-C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To amend the fence ordinance to include the following: 1) Under section 1F in 3, 4, and 5 include white or tan or gray, and include a provision for a new subdivision to be reviewed and approved along the parks and trails, that the fence be specified for each individual subdivision. 2) To also add to the fence ordinance to allow a group of neighbors of existing homes specified as to be a minimum of 10 lots in a row except where there are fewer than 10 contiguous homes, and that those neighbors can petition the Planning Commission and City Council to allow for a different type of fence along a park or a trail. Seconded by C. Kroes.
C. Volden stated that he thinks it sets a bad precedence to allow a group of residents to dictate the ordinance. C. Steele said that the Planning Commission still has the option of accepting or denying their petition
Aye-C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
Nay-C. Chandler
C. Volden Motion passes.
MOTION: C. Volden - To allow C. Kroes to fill in for Donald Steele as acting chair of the Planning Commission. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye-C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Steele
C. Volden Motion passes.
C. Steele excused - 8:50 p.m.
H.R. Brown invited to act as a voting member.
4. Review/Recommendation on Landscaping Ordinance (8:50 p.m.)
See handouts.
Staff Presentation:
Rod Despain stated that the primary difference between this draft and the prior draft is that this draft includes provisions for landscaping at existing structures. The first draft just addressed new construction. He has looked at other communities and their ordinances; most deal loosely with existing residential landscaping. Eric Johnson, City Attorney, may need to look at it for any legal issues. The difficulty is with the ability and willingness to enforce the landscaping ordinance. This is intended to be part of the development code and is a zoning-related requirement. The intent is to ensure the timely installation and ongoing maintenance of residential lots. It requires that the front yard area of any dwelling be landscaped. The definition of landscaping was expanded to include xeriscaping, but clarifies that the failure to maintain is not xeriscaping. In new construction, landscaping is required prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. In winter months, a continuation is allowed. Enforcement is the responsibility of the Chief Building Official. Upon notice, the owner has 90 days to comply. The appeal process goes through the City Council and any penalties fall under the Zoning Code. As currently written, the penalty is a Class C misdemeanor, which is a fine ($750) upon conviction. Rodney Despain suggested that it be termed an infraction, which is a money-only issue. Either way, the money goes to the courts.
Committee Discussion:
• C. Chandler stated that he feels that for existing homes, this ordinance will not be enforced. The City does not have the time or manpower to enforce. He feels the City needs to hire a full-time Code Enforcement Officer.
Requested Commission Changes:
• Section 1, A - Remove “and ongoing maintenance”
• Section 1, C, Landscaping Defined: “The term landscaping shall mean and include the installation of any combination . . .”
• Section 1, C, 2 - “Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prohibit the use of drought tolerant vegetation (xeriscape), and non-vegetative material.”
• Section 1, C, 1—replace “sprinkler system” with “irrigation system”
MOTION: C. Volden - To approve the changes to the landscape ordinance, schedule a Public Hearing, and subject to the review by the City attorney. Seconded by C. Chandler.
Aye-C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Volden Motion passes.
6. Review General Plan (9:30 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Maxwell - To postpone Item #6, Review of General Plan, until next meeting. Seconded by C. Volden.
Aye-C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Volden Motion passes.
7. Assignment of Member to the Parks and Trails Committee (9:31 p.m.)
C. Volden was assigned but has been unable to attend their meetings due to work and travel conflicts. C. Volden and C. Kroes agreed to be alternates together.
MOTION: C. Kroes - To have Steve Kroes serve as alternate to the Parks and Trails Committee. Seconded by C. Maxwell.
Aye-C. Brown
C. Chandler
C. Kroes
C. Maxwell
C. Volden Motion passes.
8. Committee Assignments and Reports (9:34 p.m.)
• C. Volden - Attended the Land Use Workshop and found that it was useful. He learned that under conditional use, if someone meets the conditions, the Planning Commission cannot deny the request. Rodney Despain explained that under conditional uses that is correct but the City does not have conditional uses. The process the City uses makes it a legislative enactment that gives the City more flexibility.
9. This meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. on a motion by C. Volden, seconded by C. Maxwell, and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Approved by Commission: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
July 27, 2006